"Where we disagree is that those soldiers did not have to be in Iraq in the first place. There was no reason. They were put in harm's way for no reason. What part of that don't you get?"

America soldiers are in Iraq because there are ordered to be there, if they were ordered to be in Antarctic, they would have a reason to be in the Antarctic.

British troops are in Iraq because the British govt has ordered them there. The fact that both British and American troops have been sent to Iraq by itself should make you wonder whether you are correct in your idea that there no reason for them to be there. And there are many other countries which have sent troops or other kinds action to assist in this operation.

One aspect that underlies your position is the idea that Saddam was a legitmate ruler of Iraq. Can you explain why Saddam should have left to rule Iraq. As a small example, do you think that reporters should have as a general practice have "minders" who control where a reporter goes and what a reporter write, and those charged with monitoring the reporter, be threatened and punished if reporter does anything that Saddam and regime does not like.
But let's turn this around a bit, what good aspects were there to Saddam's regime. What did Saddam do as a leader that you imagine the people of Iraq would approve of him being the leader of their country?

Anyways the main reason why the Coalition is in Iraq is because Iraq invaded Kuwait. And a large reason why Saddam invaded Kuwait is because previously he had started a war with Iran and that was very costly war in which Kuwait had loaned him money for his war effort. Without the Coalition of Gulf War I, it is likely the Saddam would have also invaded Saudi Arabia {the leadership of Saudi Arabia thought this so possible that they were willing [even eager] to allow an overwhelming American miltary presence in Saudi Arabia.
To be anywhere near consistent, for you to oppose Gulf war II, you have to be also against Gulf war I. This could be a valid point of view, but I'm just pointing out the logic required. One should also remember that a key ally in Gulf II, is Kuwait. And after Gulf I, Kuwait required protection from a hostile Saddam regime.

Anyhow, you can forget all these various reasons, and look at existing situation. We have miltary forces in Iraq and the legitmate legal authority which has been elected by Iraqis and the majority of Iraqi see the need for there continued presence until Iraqi security is able to maintain it's own security. And you can think of our being there as assisting Iraqis, and we are also improving our own miltary capablity in regards to fighting against an ever growing type of threat- which a miltary force which uses terror to destroy states, and thereafter manage the population using oppressive measures- such as in places like Afghanistan pre-invasion, and places like Iran, N Korea, Sudan, or Columbia. That Iraq is for the miltary an opportuny to train our miltary to effectively deal with similar types of threats and that old threats such as massive tank invasion or any conventional type warfare is not as likely the type of threats to security in the future.